Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive industry classification data' and 'Retrieve key details', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if this is a list or search function, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the schema's page/limit parameters), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key retrievable details. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (accessing comprehensive data across all sectors) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of 'comprehensive' (e.g., all companies globally or filtered), the structure of the returned data, or how to interpret results like SIC codes. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output guidance, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (page and limit), clearly documenting them for pagination. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Access comprehensive industry classification data for companies across all sectors' and 'Retrieve key details such as SIC codes, industry titles, and business contact information.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'retrieve') and resource ('industry classification data'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getIndustryClassificationList' or 'searchIndustryClassification', which appear to serve similar purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'getIndustryClassificationList' or 'searchIndustryClassification', nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.